Urban governance 105
movements and lobby groups, into the identification and articulation of missions to be addressed and achieved. However, such working practices would
call for a more networked and coordinated form of governance that contrasts
with current bureaucratic, sectoral and silo- based municipal departments and
working practices. It thus seems opportune to supplement current silo- based
working practices with more networked governance to mobilise broader sets
of societal actors into a joint reflection on possible alternative and viable ways
forward towards increased sustainability in existing urban waste systems. Such
an approach would be an effective response to the call for a better understanding of how the public sector can encourage more dynamic capabilities
(Kattel & Mazzucato, 2018) and democratic processes in which missions are
defined (Mazzucato, 2017).
Note
1 This chapter draws upon a recent paper published in Research Policy (Bugge,
Fevolden & Klitkou, 2018). Here we take a closer look at one of the three cases
presented in the original paper, and we apply another analytical framework. Instead
of governance regimes, we here discuss the importance of problem setting to
mission- oriented innovation in urban waste valorisation.
References
Bugge, M. M., Fevolden, A. M. & Klitkou, A. (2018). Governance for system optimization and system change: The case of urban waste. Research Policy, in press.
doi:10.1016/j.respol.2018.10.013.
David, P. A. (1985). Clio and the economics of QWERTY. The American Economic
Review, 75(2), 332–337.
Edquist, C., & Zabala- Iturriagagoitiaa, J. M. (2012). Public procurement for innovation as mission- oriented innovation policy. Research Policy, 41(10), 1757–1769.
European Commission. (2008). Directive 2008/98/EC of the European Parliament and of
the Council of 19 November 2008 on waste and repealing certain Directives. Official Journal
of the European Union.
Fagerberg, J. (2017). Mission (Im)possible? The Role of Innovation (and Innovation Policy)
in Supporting Structural Change and Sustainability Transitions. TIK Working Papers on
Innovation Studies. TIK Centre, University of Oslo. Retrieved from http://ideas.
repec.org/s/tik/inowpp.html.
Fagerberg, J. (2018). Mobilizing innovation for sustainability transitions: A comment
on transformative innovation policy. Research Policy, 47(9), 1568–1576.
Frantzeskaki, N., & Kabisch, N. (2016). Designing a knowledge co- production operating space for urban environmental governance: Lessons from Rotterdam, Netherlands and Berlin, Germany. Environmental Science & Policy, 62(August), 90–98.
Frantzeskaki, N., & Loorbach, D. (2010). Towards governing infrasystem transitions:
Reinforcing lock- in or facilitating change? Technological Forecasting & Social Change,
77(8), 1292–1301.
Gee, S., & Uyarra, E. (2013). A role for public procurement in system innovation:
The transformation of the Greater Manchester (UK) waste system. Technology Analysis & Strategic Management, 25(10), 1175–1188.
movements and lobby groups, into the identification and articulation of missions to be addressed and achieved. However, such working practices would
call for a more networked and coordinated form of governance that contrasts
with current bureaucratic, sectoral and silo- based municipal departments and
working practices. It thus seems opportune to supplement current silo- based
working practices with more networked governance to mobilise broader sets
of societal actors into a joint reflection on possible alternative and viable ways
forward towards increased sustainability in existing urban waste systems. Such
an approach would be an effective response to the call for a better understanding of how the public sector can encourage more dynamic capabilities
(Kattel & Mazzucato, 2018) and democratic processes in which missions are
defined (Mazzucato, 2017).
Note
1 This chapter draws upon a recent paper published in Research Policy (Bugge,
Fevolden & Klitkou, 2018). Here we take a closer look at one of the three cases
presented in the original paper, and we apply another analytical framework. Instead
of governance regimes, we here discuss the importance of problem setting to
mission- oriented innovation in urban waste valorisation.
References
Bugge, M. M., Fevolden, A. M. & Klitkou, A. (2018). Governance for system optimization and system change: The case of urban waste. Research Policy, in press.
doi:10.1016/j.respol.2018.10.013.
David, P. A. (1985). Clio and the economics of QWERTY. The American Economic
Review, 75(2), 332–337.
Edquist, C., & Zabala- Iturriagagoitiaa, J. M. (2012). Public procurement for innovation as mission- oriented innovation policy. Research Policy, 41(10), 1757–1769.
European Commission. (2008). Directive 2008/98/EC of the European Parliament and of
the Council of 19 November 2008 on waste and repealing certain Directives. Official Journal
of the European Union.
Fagerberg, J. (2017). Mission (Im)possible? The Role of Innovation (and Innovation Policy)
in Supporting Structural Change and Sustainability Transitions. TIK Working Papers on
Innovation Studies. TIK Centre, University of Oslo. Retrieved from http://ideas.
repec.org/s/tik/inowpp.html.
Fagerberg, J. (2018). Mobilizing innovation for sustainability transitions: A comment
on transformative innovation policy. Research Policy, 47(9), 1568–1576.
Frantzeskaki, N., & Kabisch, N. (2016). Designing a knowledge co- production operating space for urban environmental governance: Lessons from Rotterdam, Netherlands and Berlin, Germany. Environmental Science & Policy, 62(August), 90–98.
Frantzeskaki, N., & Loorbach, D. (2010). Towards governing infrasystem transitions:
Reinforcing lock- in or facilitating change? Technological Forecasting & Social Change,
77(8), 1292–1301.
Gee, S., & Uyarra, E. (2013). A role for public procurement in system innovation:
The transformation of the Greater Manchester (UK) waste system. Technology Analysis & Strategic Management, 25(10), 1175–1188.